@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 9 days agologs are for quittersmander.xyzimagemessage-square102fedilinkarrow-up11.29Karrow-down117
arrow-up11.27Karrow-down1imagelogs are for quittersmander.xyz@[email protected]M to Science [email protected]English • 9 days agomessage-square102fedilink
minus-squareSchadrachlinkfedilinkEnglish4•8 days agoUsually space craft have relatively light power needs so why bother with a whole-ass nuclear reactor when an RTG is smaller, lighter, and has no moving parts? They’re a pretty common choice for space probes, for example. https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/plutonium.png
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•7 days agoWe’re actually running into shortages of Plutonium 238. Which is seriously compromising deep space missions.
Usually space craft have relatively light power needs so why bother with a whole-ass nuclear reactor when an RTG is smaller, lighter, and has no moving parts? They’re a pretty common choice for space probes, for example.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/plutonium.png
We’re actually running into shortages of Plutonium 238. Which is seriously compromising deep space missions.